Doug, I'm curious. I trust you have read my post of 24 Feb 03 - 02:20 PM. I'll toss a quote at you and then ask you a question:—
. . . I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. -- Barry Goldwater (from The Conscience of a Conservative)
Do you consider yourself to be one of the Neo-Conservatives (who, not only are not upset when the Constitution is by-passed, but who indeed advocate such ad hoc by-passing, and under stricter definitions than most Americans use, could easily be regarded as "Liberals"), or do you still regard yourself as a Goldwater Conservative? And if the latter, how to you square that with the position you take on the necessity of "amending" our liberties, as you put it (nice, delicate turn of phrase, by the way!). I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious.
Just to clarify my own position, I would regard myself as a social liberal--although not as liberal as a lot of Liberals. But when it comes to the Constitution, I am a stiff-lipped, hard-nosed, old-style Conservative.